DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DG 20370-5100
TAL
Docket No: 564-11
12 October 2011
This ig in reference to your application for correction of your
naval record pursuant to the provisions of title 10, United
States Code, section 1552.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 5 October 2011. Your allegations of error and
injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative
regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this
Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of
your ‘application, together with all material submitted in support
thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations,
and policies.
After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire
record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient
to establish the existence of probable material error or
injustice.
You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on
8 July 2008 at age 18. On 8 August 2009, you received
nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for failure to go at the prescribed
time to your appointed place of duty. On 23 December 2009, you.
received NUP for failure to go at the prescribed time to your
appointed place of duty. After the first NJP, you were counseled
regarding your misconduct and warned that further offenses could
result in administrative separation. You were notified of
pending administrative discharge processing with a general
discharge due to a pattern of misconduct. On 22 January 2010,
you were discharged with a general characterization of service,
and an RE-4 (not recommended for reenlistment) reentry code.
The Board, in its review of your application, carefully weighed
ail potentially mitigating factors, such as your youth and
overall record of service. Nevertheless, the Board found that
these factors were not sufficient to warrant a change in your
reentry code given the seriousness of your misconduct. The Board
also believed that you were fortunate to receive a general
discharge since a discharge under other than honorable conditions
is often directed when a Sailor is separated for misconduct.
Accordingly, your application has been denied. The names and
votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.
The Board also noted that you are entitled to submit the attached
Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the
Armed Forces of the United States (DD Form 293) to the Naval
Council of Personnel Review Boards, Attention: Naval Discharge
Review Board (NDRB), 720 Kennon Street, SE, Room 309, Washington
Navy Yard, Washington, DC 20375-5023, for consideration of an
upgrade of your discharge and a change in your narrative reason
for discharge.
It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that
Favorable action cannot be taken. You are entitled to have the
Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new and material
evidence or other matter not previously considered by the Board.
In this regard, it is important to keep in mind that a
presumption of regularity attaches to all official records.
Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval
record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the
existence of probable material error or injustice.
Sincerely,
Mw
W. DEAN PF
Executive DWrettor
Enclosure
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 05299-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 February 2011. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 10691-10
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. On 1 November-1993, your case was heard by an administrative discharge board (ADB), which voted three to zero in favor of an other than honorable (OTH) discharge due to misconduct. On 32 January 1994, the discharge authority directed an OTH discharge by reason of misconduct.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 07444-10
Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 01357-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your ~ application on 2 November 2011. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 00166-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 September 2011. The Board also noted that you are entitled to submit the attached Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States (DD Form 293} to the Naval Council of Personnel Review Boards, Attention: Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB)}, 720 Kennon Street, SE, Room 309, Washington Navy Yard, Washington, DC...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 05246-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 March 2011. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. On 23 March 1976, you received NJP for being absent from your appointed place of duty.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 05002-10
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. On 24 May 1991, you were so discharged. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 07317-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 March 2011. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 01889-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 November 2009. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06287-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 March 2011. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. Nevertheless, the Board found that these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given the seriousness of your...